Please note that I have also supplemented this with an article where I go into alot more detail on some issues, especially how sufficient grace and the universal call relate to reprobation: shorturl.at/1a9je

Here are the key points: God desires the salvation of all people. God predestines some people to salvation, but not all. God predestines all the graces a person needs to be saved. Predestination happens before a person merits it. People are condemned to hell because of their own sins, not because God predestined them to hell. God allows people to fall into sin but does not cause them to sin.

@learningortho

2 ай бұрын

​@Christ_is_King- calvin believed the same thing

@JosephSchumann-jk6bt

2 ай бұрын

Is Grace resistible?

@christian3692

2 ай бұрын

@@JosephSchumann-jk6btYes both sufficient and efficacious grace ARE RESISTIBLE.

@charles21137

2 ай бұрын

@Christ_is_King-you do realize that Calvinist also believe damnation on account of sins, right?

@johnqpublic3766

Ай бұрын

@@JosephSchumann-jk6btNo. Read Pascal’s Provincial Letters.

Dang, and I thought physics was hard.

@Kingofkings07133

2 ай бұрын

😂😂😂

Had to watch this 3x before the “light bulb” moment. Stay committed learning bros!

As a Catholic, I am praying for all of you. God have mercy.

@thomasthellamas9886

2 ай бұрын

But are you praying for our salvation or our damnation hehe

@nickramirez5579

2 ай бұрын

Did you have an issue with the video?

This was a well built and short video on predestination, great work!

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Thank you 🙏🏻

"*Stop sperging and wait 2 seconds, Reformed Bros" should've been in all caps, red font and dead center on the screen. I can't tell if people didn't bother watching the entire thing or the explanation simply went over their heads.

Great stuff. Theology often goes right over my head, so I appreciate you defining the technical terms for mid-wits like me

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Glad to hear it!

I was just studying Romans 9, this helped a lot. Thanks!

“God predestines no one to go to hell” - CCC 1037

@Alexandros74738

2 ай бұрын

@Christ_is_King- Where is that said? It plainly denies any double predestination.

@Kingofkings07133

2 ай бұрын

@@Alexandros74738did you even bother watching the video?

@delvingeorge2807

Ай бұрын

​@@Alexandros74738 Why did St. Louis de Montfort use the term Predestination then? Watch the whole video

@johnqpublic3766

Ай бұрын

lol no

@kvnboudreaux

11 күн бұрын

@Christ_is_King-that is de fide dogma? That is interesting because it places God decision of reprobation on his foreknowledge of one’s choices…isn’t that the molinist perspective, as opposed to the thomist view which places God’s election on his will

CCC 600 “To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. *When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace:* "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.” Canon IV, Session 6 of Trent “If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; *that it cannot refuse its consent,* if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.”

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

True

@chissstardestroyer

2 ай бұрын

There never was any predestination, as any such idea disproves God's goodness and in fact proves Him to be a literal devil, as if you believe in that heretical idea (predestination) of any form at all; you ipso-facto in fact are engaged in overt devil-worship!

@christsavesreadromans1096

2 ай бұрын

@@chissstardestroyer False, predestination is biblical and catholic dogma.

@chissstardestroyer

2 ай бұрын

@Christ_is_King- Well, first of all: no way could any faith that teaches any form of predestination be worshipping the real god; so their god is really a devil; plus numerous church teachings condemn predestination as heretical (which it absolutely is); as it denies God's goodness by denying HIs justice. Use common sense and reason for crying out loud and you'll be way closer to the real deal, instead of this paganism you've been pushing by endorsing a god who'd deny man's free will. As any predestination automatically denies man's free-will, all of it is in fact ipso-facto false and heretical. Plus we've got Christ's own remark of His standards of discernment; that alone literally does confirm that man saves *himself* as a collaborative effort with Him.

@chissstardestroyer

2 ай бұрын

@@christsavesreadromans1096 Then the bible you cite is in fact heretical, as it denies His goodness by removing His justice. So really you're winding up with objective paganism. And thus you're engaged in idolatry, pure and simple.

3:15 sounds quite close to the “antinomic” theology of the Russian renaissance guys (Solovyev, Florensky, Bulgakov and you even see it in Lossky).

@Matthew-xm2mi

27 күн бұрын

Can you explain what this means

@telosbound

27 күн бұрын

@@Matthew-xm2mithese Russian philosophers/theologians stressed that theological paradoxes cannot be resolved by human reason and that until our minds are fully transfigured by grace we will not fully perceive their inner reasonableness. Some go so far as to say God himself is paradoxical/antinomic, which is dumb.

I was predestined to like and comment on this video

Thanks for doing this, SO NEEDED

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Thanks boss 🙏🏻

@marteld2108

Ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomistWith all due respect the Church does NOT teach “Double Predestination” In CCC 600 and 1037 it is clear on this.

I don't get it. This is way over my head. Great video.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Same.

@einhelm5270

2 ай бұрын

Same

@kuuushXD

2 ай бұрын

i'll put it in easier terms that I found online (from Dr. Ludwig Ott's book "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma") God, by His eternal resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness & God, by an eternal resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection. it is NOT the same as the double predestination that calvin*sts teach where God makes people sin (even though they frame it as if it is not active, they teach active predestination of sins).

@My10thAccount

2 ай бұрын

@@kuuushXD So there are some people who are just essentially doomed by default and can’t get out? Is that what you’re saying? I don’t understand. Why would the same God who went through death on a cross for the sins of man simultaneously damn some of those men irrevocably?

@davemoore7808

2 ай бұрын

@@My10thAccount Did you even bothered reading the comment you're replying to?

By this definition (which is actually solid), Arminius also taught double predestination (the permission of foreknown impenitents to punishment).

Great vid Wagner 👌

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Thanks 👍

As a reminder…if you believe that I am unorthodox in what I am saying, 1. I would suggest watching the ENTIRE video. 2. Remember that the historical question of the believes of Calvin and the later Reformed are different than being unorthodox (although, I think Calvin was unorthodox on this question). 3. The term “double predestination” can be taken in a bad sense, and do #1 in order to discover the proper sense.

@chissstardestroyer

2 ай бұрын

Oh, it is not just unorthodox, it is overtly heretical in its basic core to claim that any kind of predestination at all could ever exist.

@thomasthellamas9886

2 ай бұрын

@@chissstardestroyerlol. Good one

@chissstardestroyer

2 ай бұрын

@@thomasthellamas9886 Yeah the whole analysis he's made is flat-out the same exact heresy as Lucifer: that thing came up with predestination.

@thomasthellamas9886

2 ай бұрын

@@chissstardestroyer oh. I thought you were making a joke because of how ridiculous your comment sounded. Nvrm. The Bible mentions and partially explains predestination several times. If you believe in the Bible YOU can’t get around that.

@chissstardestroyer

2 ай бұрын

@@thomasthellamas9886 No, there never ever was any predestination, and the mere *idea* of my, or any comment being ridiculous only proves that your god is a devil- as by having predestination he's a false god- an actually evil "god" fundamentially in and of itself. In short, we *know* that predestination is a heresy, no matter how it is attempted to be explained away: as it contradicts God's goodness by nullifying His justice. So either you reject those overtly heretical passages, or you worship a literal *devil*, there is no other way. And Christ Himself condemned it when He laid out His terms for discerning: "as you did or did not do", note *did/didn't*, not "believed" (faith) not "received" (grace), but *did*, (deeds of the law, which equals moral law), and another more devastating source: 'even the demons themselves believe', now you *cannot* believe without grace, so they clearly have both all manner of grace and faith, but both are *worthless* as they lack deeds of objective goodness, but they're far worse: as their deeds are dedicated to immorality. So therefore we're left with the truth: man saves himself in collaboration with Christ and it is *Christ* that refutes, nay, not only merely "refutes" but overtly *condemns* you and your colleagues and sources for teaching not a false gospel: that's easy to forgive, but a false *god*; that's Way worse than you can possibly imagine! So we're left with the truth: anyone who rejects you and your sources, whatever they may be; is in league with Christ and salvation, yet you sir, are already in Hell, as are those "sources" you cited for teaching falsehood, not to mention overt paganism!

Thanks much for this video.

Solid video! Do you know of any good (and preferably systematic) resources on early molinist thought? I’d love to read up on it.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Most of my knowledge comes from the Sacrae Theologiae Summa...I haven't done a primary source study of De Auxiliis yet

Awesome video keep it up

Banger

The difference is if grace is irresistible or not. If its not, then there is no free will and as a result there are those predestined to hell.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

The bigger difference in this aspect would be the presence of sufficient grace. The question of the resistability of grace concerns the freedom of the elect.

@TheGreekCatholic

2 ай бұрын

@MilitantThomist yes I believe that's the initial erroneous premise. The amount of cognitive dissidents u need to embrace it takes some serious work. The same way greeks push the spirits procession from the father only.

@elijahfunk2710

2 ай бұрын

Maybe there are two kinds of grace, resistable to all and irresistible to the elect

Great video

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Wagner, I was looking for clarification on this topic. "If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema" (Session Six, Canon XVII, Council of Trent). This canon makes it seem like that "predestination unto evil" is the withholding of grace to the non-elect, not just the infusion of anti-grace. What are your thoughts?

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

A few things 1. From the get go, the Council is certainly not condemning the idea of an antecedent negative Reprobation since every theologian at the Council affirmed such a Reprobation (which is even affirmed by most Jesuit scholastics). 2. The canon is specifically denying two things, a. That efficacious grace is only given to the elect (which is denied by the Calvinists who Identity efficacious grace with the grace of perseverance and affirmed by all Catholic theologians). b. That there is not a sufficient grace given to all men.

@thehighlander6770

2 ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist Ok, thank you for the answer!

@kvnboudreaux

11 күн бұрын

@@MilitantThomistif God infallibly saves through efficacious grace how is that any different than saying God infallibly saves through irresistible grace? And does aquinas actually hold to a libertarian view of free will?

@Mach15-20

11 күн бұрын

@@kvnboudreaux Because as catholics we don’t like the word ”irresistible” because it can make it seem that it’s not accepted freely by the will but overpowers someone unwilling. Aquinas was definitely not libertarian.

listening to this as i do my math homework

@kvnboudreaux

11 күн бұрын

How in the world can you do both

@Catho.

10 күн бұрын

@@kvnboudreaux faith

My formator says that if someone doesnt know what Molinism is they're likely a Molinist.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Not at all. They’re likely semi-pelagians if they’re lucky.

I don't understand how can you reconcile "Antecedent Negative Reprobation" with God's desire for the salvation of all and giving all the graces necessary for salvation.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Because I don't accept the Molinist account of the objective identity of sufficient and efficacious grace.

@GabrielPereira-hm1cz

2 ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist Yeah, that's fine. But how do you reconcile it? At prima facie they look contradictory.

@stquodvultdeus4613

Ай бұрын

God doesn’t desire the salvation of all. Even if would believe in Molinism or Arminianism I would still not think that God wants all men literally to be saved. God foreknew full well that billions of people would go to Hell and yet, He still created them. Would you create a kid of whom you kmew it would grow up and befome a disbeliever and go to Hell? no, right? 1 Timothy 2:4 is an anthropomorphism. Augustine had this clever remark in his work on rebuke and grace where he first says 1 tim 2:4 is possibly about kinds of people but afterwards also says its possibly not so much Gods will for all to be saved, but rather our will. Just like when God says to Abraham “now I know that you fear me” it’s not literally God who gains knowledge but its rather Abraham who now knows. At the very least is it a anthropomorphism

@GabrielPereira-hm1cz

Күн бұрын

@@MilitantThomist Dude I watch this a bunch of times. And finally understood! ANR makes sense now. Thanks!

In Wagner we trust 🗣️ (Remember me from discord, I said you were a Giga Chad)

most people who say "Double predestination" really define it as predestinarianism so in this sense they are not wrong when they say double predestination is a Heresy

This seems similar to Jansen’s opinion in the Augustinus which affirms double predestination *if one is referring to the punishments for the wicked in Hell.* Jansen like Augustine and Orange does not affirm the predestination of demerits. “Deserunt et deseruntur”

@terratremuit4757

2 ай бұрын

@Christ_is_King- Yes, my opinion is that he did not

@johnisaacfelipe6357

2 ай бұрын

@Christ_is_King- but you cannot move against what is said in unigenitus, in the same way, we can be wrong in our disciple towards nestorius or even towards pelagius, but we can never be wrong on anathematizing the views attached to their name even if they didn't teach it. And what is being explained by Wagner is what is condemned in Unigenitus.

@stquodvultdeus4613

Ай бұрын

Predestination of demerits is equal to Gods choice to not give Grace, since men are incapable by themselves to do good and to attain salvation. God doesn’t need to do much to predestine people

@stquodvultdeus4613

Ай бұрын

It’s just that Catholic predestinarians are more weary of certain words than Calvinists, but even Calvinists can be very weary about words that seem logical with their views. Yet, its true they say “sin is predestined” but they would also say “in a negative sense”. Calvinists are a bit more consistent then Catholic predestinarians there

I don't find this satisfying. It is said that God is not the author of sin, but it is also said that God has rigged the game against certain (read: probably most) people so that they basically have no other option than to sin. I don't understand how Judas is not only a) guilty of ultimately betraying the Lord if b) that was ostensibly his only option. Unless there's something crucial here that I'm missing.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

It’s because antecedent Reprobation is *negative*, not positive.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

2 ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist So God does not make people sin, He simply allows them to fall into sin. Makes sense.

@GuichoThe1st

2 ай бұрын

​The Our Father contradicts this statement. @Testimony_Of_JTF

Hey brother I’m planning to snag Grenier’s complete set from your Lulu page. How good is the quality of the physical book though? Is it sturdy?

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Printing quality is a bit eh, but it’ll hold up

Does the Thomistic view suggest that grace imposes faith on the elect? Or does grace enable the elect to freely (but inevitably) come to faith?

I definitely landed in the Molinist camp, however I never took that left turn you described. Everything comes from Grace. I really liked the last part. It seems that it squares the circle with Judas, Herod, and many evil men now. However, just so I'm clear, negative reprobation is to damnation, but positive predestination is to grace only?

Hey Christian, thanks for the this video. As someone who's Reformed I'm hoping I could get your perspective on this particular extract from Calvin's Institutes: "They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed Adam should perish by his revolt. . . . They say that, in accordance with free will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where will be the omnipotence of God. . . . It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation by the fault of one parent . . . it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God. . . . The decree, I admit, is dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew because he had so ordained by his decree" - [Institutes, bk.3, ch.23, para. 7] Many Catholics (including the staff at Catholic Answers) I've seen advance this quote as proof that God -in Calvin's view- is unjust and/or wrathful but from what I've come to understand, nothing about it is unorthodox to Catholic doctrine. On my part, I don't believe that Calvin here is arguing that God actively wills sin and for people to go to Hell (like what Reginald Lagrange asserts in his book 'Predestination'). Because the in the next paragraph Calvin clarifies by stating that all God has made was "exceedingly good" (quoting Gen 1:31) and directs the blame of evils entrance into the creation onto man, which God permitted (in manner similar to Jobs misfortune). Finishing off by connecting this to Gods salvific plans (with respect to predestination), saying: "we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation IN THE CORRUPT NATURE OF HUMANITY".

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

There is legitimate disagreement between Catholics on how to interpret Calvin on Reprobation…personally, I think he makes antecedent Reprobation positive, from my reading of the Institutes and his tract on predestination (especially its denial of “permission” language). On the other hand, Hasan argues that he can be read in an orthodox fashion. Either way, the Reformed tradition denies that preterition is positive, so it doesn’t really matter to me as an apologetic point.

@xehaexox

2 ай бұрын

Jimmy Akin of CA has been known to be more sympathetic to calvinism than other apologists. Read his “tiptoe through TULIP” article on his website

@stquodvultdeus4613

Ай бұрын

Calvin believed in secondary causation when it comes to sin and disbelief, but God does actively will sin and for many people to go to Hell, but He doesn’t actively work that out. He doesn’t will sin for its own sake though, but as the means to which God can either leave them to be damned and so be glorified by His justice in punishing or to gift them the necessary condition (faith) for salvation by His grace and so be glorified through His Mercy. That’s Calvins doctrine

Finally!!!

What do you think of Fr. William Most's theory of predestination, if you've read it? As defined in Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God I found the book super interesting, but it certainly seems to redefine predestination and requires an interesting, if not unique, definition of the independence of the human free will.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

I think it is completely novel and very wrong…I eventually want to do a video on it.

@JackEdmondson-uo5gz

2 ай бұрын

Rip to us Fr. Most enjoyers 😶🙏✌

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

@Christ_is_King-Basically…his response to Sola and Muniz almost made me rip my hair out.

It would be helpful for viewers to also specify which "points in tension" are required to be held when accepting these theses. Here is one I see immediately, hidden in the first thesis that was brushed over: If God predestines the means for salvation in general, but also predestines all specific salvific acts as well as the specific persons for those acts, how can one in any way say that God wants everyone to be saved?

In arguing with a friend of mine, who is a universalist in the style of Gregory of Nyssa, I found these explanations of the Thomist view on reprobation both helpful and troubling. It seems that you cannot avoid that, since the only thing that (ultimately) is required to save the unelect is for God to provide them saving grace, and God chooses to withhold this grace from some people, it really is the case that God could have saved everyone but chose not to. But if God wills all to be saved, and yet He chooses to withhold that which will save, in what sense does he will all to be saved? This seems a contradiction. It is also a picture of God that is very unfitting, like a doctor who holds within his power the cure for a terminal disease and cures some but not others. We would not call this a responsible, not to mention loving, doctor, and yet God seems to be in the same position. At the end of the conundrum, I was forced to admit a kind of hopeful universalism. I am not brave enough to cross the river my friend has, ironically because I fear being put in Hell because of my belief that God is better than the picture which is painted here. At the end of the day, I must hope that God is true to His word in his real authentic desire to save all and would not withhold his grace from some just so He could punish them with the worst torments for all eternity. What glory this shows, I don't know. Maybe it is the case that, as Thomists and Augustinians say, the ways of God are inscrutable. I certainly can't make sense of this.

@Mach15-20

2 ай бұрын

In the sense of meaning; All KINDS of men, not every individual amongst men. 2. You assume people are innocent. They are not. It shows His perfect and glorious justice on the reprobate and His perfect and glorious mercy on the elect, which shines forth even stronger by seeing the opposite states of men.

@CybermanKing

2 ай бұрын

⁠@@Mach15-20I see what you mean, but I am still in the same place as the above commenter. My concern is that as you say, we are not innocent. We are all born with original sin. It is God’s justice that we are all punished for our transgressions but through the sacrifice of Christ, God offers us mercy for our transgressions against him. Since Christ died for all of us, it is true that God wants all of us to be saved. So if that is the case, why not just make everyone part of the elect? That’s not to say injustices go without punishment but through a purification in this life and the following one, we can return united to Christ as his brothers and sisters. Yet again, at the same time, we know outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. So, God wants everyone to belong to the Church. Yet some, really many, aren’t. But why?

@Mach15-20

2 ай бұрын

@@CybermanKing I deny the literalness of that quote, that’s why it’s not a contradiction. The words of the Apostle, "God will have all men to be saved," etc. can be understood in three ways. First, by a restricted application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), "God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will." Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition. Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed. To understand this we must consider that everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. A thing taken in its primary sense, and absolutely considered, may be good or evil, and yet when some additional circumstances are taken into account, by a consequent consideration may be changed into the contrary. Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts. Nor do we will strictly, what we will antecedently, but rather we will it in a qualified manner; for the will is directed to things as they are in themselves, and in themselves they exist under particular qualifications. Hence we will a thing simply inasmuch as we will it when all particular circumstances are considered; and this is what is meant by willing consequently. Thus it may be said that a just judge wills strictly the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute will. Thus it is clear that whatever God strictly wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place.

@labxnair

2 ай бұрын

@@Mach15-20 I don't think you answered his question though. Because as the catechism says in paragraph 1037, a willful turning away from God is required to go to hell. If we have no other option but to do that since we never have the opportunity to even come to salvation, there can't be such a thing as a willful turning away since we aren't physically capable of doing otherwise. So if someone goes to hell, I fail to see how the blame would be on the human because there is nothing they could've done not to go to hell since they never had the chance or capability to accept him. So I can't see how the person at fault for people going to hell in this paradigm isn't God.

@Mach15-20

2 ай бұрын

@@labxnair Ofc you go to hell with your free will. Eventhough you can’t go to heaven without God’s help doesn’t mean that sin is fake or comitted neccessarily.

Any good book on this specific matter reviewing all different theses?

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

In Predestination, Garrigou has a section where he goes over the teaching of the Church

So would it be accurate to say that Calvin affirmed positive reprobation, and St. Thomas affirmed passive reprobation?

@EmilTennis00

2 ай бұрын

no, both affirmed negative reprobation.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Antecedent Reprobation? Yes

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

@@EmilTennis00I don’t think he’s entirely clear…I tried to read him in a coherent sense, but he doesn’t seem to be articulating it as negative. Either way, Dort clarifies so it doesn’t matter.

@thomasthellamas9886

2 ай бұрын

@Christ_is_King- actually I think it’s the opposite. I think Calvin had a more Thomistic view of reprobation and some of his followers bit bullets they didn’t need to.

Two thoughts: First, I've seen Jimmy Akin on a Catholic Answers article use CCC 600 to argue against Unconditional Election (though oddly, he has a blog post defending Unconditional Election as orthodox). I highly doubt the Holy See wanted to make a judgement on this question, and the Thomistic view is correct, so that interpretation can not be correct. What would you make of it? Second, I think single/double predestination are terms that we should just remove from the discourse, as they are overly simplistic, and they scandalise people who don't understand the distinction between the Thomistic understanding vs the Predestinarian understanding of the terms (not to mention the absence of these terms in the historical discourse on this topic).

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

As to the first, that is really weird…that would be condemning the Scotists, Augustinians, Thomists, Suarezians, Bellarmites, etc., on predestination. I would have to see his argument. As to the second, a few things…first, “scandal” refers to an act that causes someone to sin. So, how and who are sinning when I say that we ought to affirm double predestination? There are actually quite a few more Catholics who sin against the faith when they are told that “double predestination is heresy” and then unwittingly, 1. Deny consequent Reprobation (which is dogmatic), 2. Condemn negative antecedent Reprobation (which is not heretical), and 3. Go out and condemn reformed people, placing road blocks against their conversion. So, it actually seems like those doing the opposite are the ones scandalizing.

@_MysticKnight

2 ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist Great answer, thanks! I see you've already found the article I mentioned, on Twitter, so I don't need to link it here and I'm sure you'll have your own take on that.

Is Calvinism more consistent with Catholic teaching than I was led to believe? I read a jimmy akin article one time on TULIP, and he essentially says a lot of Calvinism is consistent with Catholic teaching. True?

@marteld2108

2 ай бұрын

It is not. Calvinism is heresy.

Lord have mercy

☝️ God wills it

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Mashallah

From my understanding of this while God predestines some individuals to infallibly achieve salvation (due to special grace), all individuals are still provided with sufficient grace to be saved if they freely cooperate with it. This aligns with the idea that reprobation is consequent upon the individual's response to grace rather than a result of lacking sufficient grace. In this way it seems like this version of double predestination does not fall prey to Calvinism worries

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

We don’t say that the reprobate lack sufficient grace

@ServusChristi777

Ай бұрын

Does God know who will not cooperate with God’s grace?

Hello, what are the reference DS please ?

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Denzinger

@hll97fr16

2 ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist Ok thanks

So can someone who isn’t predestined to glory but still receives sufficient grace be saved? Sorry I’m just confused

I still don't get it, do you mean God's predestined those in a way befitting to only their damnation and doesn't predestined those to evil works and sin?

The correct thing to say is that we as Catholics don't hold a high view of predestination (since St. Ignatious of Loyola).

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

St. Ignatius was a Thomist 😎

@josealzaibar5274

2 ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist For sure, I was referring to the fact that when fighting the reformation and its advances he always sought to downplay or ignore talk about predestination when (re)evangelizing. He thought it wasn't productive to talk about it.

1:02 HAHAHA, classic!

Why the scary sounds after the introduction :(

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

👻

Re: the 6 theses, all true, obviously. But allow me to, sincerely, ask: Prescinding from the Bañezian understanding of predetermining decrees (and arguably insufficient sufficient grace) and admitting the inherent (but, I would say, tensionless) mysteriousness of eternity as well as the, quoad nos, ultimate inscrutability of divine choice in the concrete, just what would you say is the (additional) mystery introduced by revelation, properly speaking? I'd say that once one grasps that the now of eternity is not that of time, and so does not temporally precede it (which truth is naturally knowable), tensions as regards intelligibility fail to arise/are resolved.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

That is a good question…I’ll have to chew on it. Btw, I have been thinking about sufficient grace and how it relates to infants recently…we should catch up sometime.

@GTMancz

2 ай бұрын

Would only be too happy to!

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

@@GTManczAre you still on Discord/Twitter?

@GTMancz

2 ай бұрын

Sort of, it's just that I've been having issues with VPNs here in Russia (free ones seem to be rather bad, and processing payments is problematic when it comes to better ones), and so accessing both, but I'll attempt reconnecting and contacting you, sir!

ai agrees with you

Double predestination is condemned by the Council of Trent. Augustine and Aquinas believed in single predestination.

@RenanGuilherme-xn5gj

2 ай бұрын

The word predestination gains a new meaning with Calvin, for Augustine Predestination is God disposing of his future works, it is clear that God knows who will be saved and who will not be saved, it does not follow that God predestined that person to go to hell, predestination has nothing to do with God's choice, but rather man's choice to remain in his kindness as stated in Romans 11:22, Since God does not rejoice in the condemnation of men and wants the conversion of all. Ezekiel 33:11.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

You’re simply equivocating on the term and taking it in a sense that nobody but Catholic Answers apologists use it.

@ronanjm

2 ай бұрын

@@RenanGuilherme-xn5gjrespectfully this isn’t true. Predestination is entirely God’s choice.

@RenanGuilherme-xn5gj

2 ай бұрын

@@ronanjm Romans 2:6-8, If predestination is the future actions of God in relation to man, the future works that he will dispose of to men will depend on whether they keep Christ's promise or not.

@Ryotenian7826

2 ай бұрын

St. Augustine wrote about double predestination more noticeably in chapter 100 on his Enchiridion, Augustine confessed a positive consequent Reprobation, or more simple wording, conditional reprobation.

I really hope your wrong. What are the options that place salvation in the hands of humans? The whole, hell is locked from the inside apology of hell is just irrelevant if this is true. Does any serious theology exist that the difference between heaven and hell is in humans?

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Did you not watch or not understand?

@Mach15-20

2 ай бұрын

They do exist, but are evidently false. God is Sovereign, not deistic.

@fortniteflex9471

2 ай бұрын

@@Mach15-20I want to be an evangelist, and I always defend hell based on the choice model, you didn’t get lucky and God unconditionally hated you from all eternity don’t complain cus you deserve it, might actually be true, I don’t know how to convey that to somebody.

@fortniteflex9471

2 ай бұрын

@@Mach15-20Nobody denies this, there’s no licit theory of predestination that is conditional on human response? St Francis de Sales seemed to indicate it was foreknowledge

@fortniteflex9471

2 ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomistcould it be that the initiative is always in Gods hand, but that grace can be not resisted and that people who go to heaven didn’t resist while those who are damned did?

The only reason why some are saved and others not is because God loves the elect more and causes them to possess enough goodness compared with God loving the reprobate less and therefor not causing them to have enough goodness. It has nothing to do with a consequent or antecedent wills.

What did the early church believe?

@thomasthellamas9886

2 ай бұрын

Does that matter?

@optimisticbear9617

2 ай бұрын

@@thomasthellamas9886 It does in fact because of the teachings and interpretation that got directly passed down to those early writers from the Apostles themselves. For instance one can rely much more on Irenaeus' words than on Christian writers centuries later since he was a student of Polycarp who was a student of Apostle John the Evangelist.

@thomasthellamas9886

2 ай бұрын

@@optimisticbear9617 Can you justify the claim that things taught by, for example, Polycarp, were taught to him by John?

@optimisticbear9617

2 ай бұрын

@@thomasthellamas9886 It's a simple conclusion to come to.

@thomasthellamas9886

2 ай бұрын

@@optimisticbear9617 Yeah, your view is intuitive to me until we find examples churches in the New Testament, founded by the apostles, falling into heresy less than a decade from their founding.

This is cool, I'm not sure what I believe but ig I try to follow saint thomas

@samuelmurphy7943

2 ай бұрын

I find this tricky but thank you for making it clear and understandable

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

You’re welcome!

@christopherlampman5579

2 ай бұрын

This might be where st. Thomas is either a) too smart for me or b) wrong. When I first heard Calvinism’s double predestination it seemed absurd to me. It still does. The vast majority of the earliest church fathers did not agree with this double predestination until post Augustine in the late 300s. Double predestination does not seem to be a development of doctrine but a contradiction of what was taught in the early church. I’m not a theologian like Christian though and could be blowing smoke.

@ronanjm

2 ай бұрын

@@christopherlampman5579so you’re not a theologian but you’ve read the vast majority of the Church Fathers, their positions on predestination, and found it at odds with the entire Latin tradition from the 4th century onwards?

Bit how is the grace sufricient if some people go to hell. I mean you could always say that had God given someone more grace, he would be in haven. Or the other way around: had God given him less grace, he would be in hell.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Check out my videos on sufficient grace.

@christsavesreadromans1096

2 ай бұрын

Because the supposed sufficient grace was only sufficient before the fall and so in the present would actually be entirely insufficient, ironically, to bring about salvation, despite the constant tradition of the church and scripture unequivocally teaching that God truly and really desires the salvation of all men.

It does not matter what St. Bellarmin oder St. Thomas alleged thought about predestination. It only matters what the Church authoritivly teaches.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

Did you just choose to ignore the entire video?

@marteld2108

2 ай бұрын

Amen.

Scotus and Aquinas were double predestinarians.... Scotus was supralapsarian, Aquinas was infralapsarian Calvin didn't come up with this out of thin air, it's been in church history from the start, it's so plainly stated in Romans 9

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

True

@CMartin04

2 ай бұрын

Can you explain to me how supralapsarianism differs from positive antecedent reprobation? Since in supralapsarianism first God elects who's going to hell and who's going to heaven and after that he brings the fall as a means to accomplish the election that he made previously.

Does “De Auxiliis” mean nothing to you people?

@johnqpublic3766

Ай бұрын

That’s a political document.

I think positive consequent reprobation is heretical. Reprobation is always negative.

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

You aren't quite sure of what you are saying...are you saying that God does not decree the damnation of those who he foreknows will be finally impenitent?

@Coteincdr

2 ай бұрын

If that is what you mean by positive then it's okay. But in relation to the grace of God it's seems to mean just passive.

@Coteincdr

2 ай бұрын

I took positive as God making them falling further into sin after the consideration of demerits.

@tiagoviana5161

2 ай бұрын

Positive consequent reprobation = infliction of the penalty of damnation on account of sin

i ❤suarez

@MilitantThomist

2 ай бұрын

So true

@sleepystar1638

2 ай бұрын

me too i want some of his books

Read Pascal’s Provincial Letters. It’s all in there.

Well, in reality, even predestination to Heaven is Luciferian, not merely Calvinistic; so the whole idea of "predestination" at *all* period is heretical, in all categories; so the here the "popular Catholic Mind" as you dubbed it *herein* is dogmatically correct- as whether you attain Heaven, or your "Heaven" really is Hell (theologically correct, as the Catechisms have universally stated time and again, repeatedly at that for how man chooses Hell if he winds up there), it is *Your own doing*, there NEVER WAS any "predestionation" at all; God provides the resources, and He may well work in man as the "Mr. Scott" to our own will's "James T. Kirk" to draw on a type of 20th Century USA "mythology" that's very compatable with Catholic teaching; we lack the proficency to fine-tune ourselves, but He sure does NOT lack in competency, and salvation is a coworker effort; but we ourselves determine what happens to us, not some kind of "divine will" so the whole idea of predestination is a heresy, and from Church history alone: it was originally from Lucifer, not John Calvin, as the Lollards of England taught the same *utterly stupid* Heresy as any predestination ever could be.

@chissstardestroyer

2 ай бұрын

@Christ_is_King- Well, that's the falsehood you've just embraced: as the dogmas actually act contra-salvation, and anything *besides* self-salvation contradicts Christ's own terms of discernent, we both know that those "dogmas" you drew upon really are themselves of a false god- so they're really *pagan* when you analyze them as they should be- and hence nobody can adhere to them, and believe in the true God- Christ Himself. And I most assuredly did NOT slander anybody, sir, but your whole sources are themselves heretical in and of themselves.